Already have it. It's called "Spec Miata".Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt
Administrator
Already have it. It's called "Spec Miata".
Senior Member
Right, because each model should only be able to run one prep level.
Seriously, just split them up and you won't have to worry about RWD cars anymore. It's a win/win.
Administrator
No, if we went that direction then it would be a direct prohibition of the car in the category...but you're right, we should all be thankful for the bounty that Spec Miata bringeth...hallelujah PRAISE the Spec Miata lord!
GA, who doesn't fall for the sarcasm...but is truly delightfully entertained by it...and prays to the goddess each night for true forgiveness for his soul...
Senior Member
Are we talking about the same thing? I'm not talking about field-filling, slower-than-real-STL SM's, I'm talking about the fear of Miata's. Solve the issue by breaking up STL into FWD and RWD. This allows the original concept to vet itself on one side while the other side provides a place to play for the other 80% of the entries.
It makes comp adjustments easier. It lets Miata eat their young on that side of the fence while the STAC concentrates on balancing the FWDers and facilitation the original idea.
Truly a win/win.
Last edited by Andy Bettencourt; 07-11-2014 at 10:19 PM.
Senior Member
Let's pretend for a second that Miatas don't exist. The reality is that it has no real impact on Kirk's initial post.
The question was whether a class whose name includes the word "touring" should be limited to "touring" cars, and if so, what are they and how are they defined. It seems to me the question is mostly aimed at STL, which I think removes the issues of the original intent being to give ex-World Challenge cars a place to play which I believe was originally part of the STU rules. If I recall correctly, the STL rules came about after that.
So let's look just at STL and pretend Miatas don't exist. Kirk is suggesting that STL cars should be "touring" cars and suggests an interior volume method for defining that. I personally like the idea of a class specifically for small engined "touring" cars. I like the idea of a field made up of "daily drivers" that include cars that almost everyone can identify with. The FWD vs RWD is really not Kirk's argument. I think the rules currently do a pretty good job of addressing that, just as they do with strut vs. DWB. I actually like the variety since each car will make it's speed in a different way.
Just thought I'd try to drag this discussion back a little closer to the original post.
Carry on.
Rory
Senior Member
2731lbs for the 13B powered Miata-- heavy but the streetdriven swaps that run the track days with me pull as hard as my turbo jett, 200hp or so it seems.
2635lbs for a BP powered 1.8 Miata-- Thats a lot of weight
2430 for a 1.8L double wishbone FWDer- needs another 50# over the FWDstrut car based on Roll center height and camber gain
2370 for a 1.8 strut FWDer- needs 70# off cuz it has all of the wrong items. Box on struts. try 2250 until it wins.
IMHO you need to run the data for Hp to weight/ and lateral power. No way that any FWD box is going to match lateral with the Miata- within 200#, maybe 300#
Mike Ogren , FWDracingguide.com, 352.4288.983 ,http://www.ogren-engineering.com/
Senior Member
I am willing to bet the street driven rotards are street-ported, significantly improving power.
The BP may seem heavy but at the claimed power outputs I would say they are dang close.
The DW/strut debate is about to heat up. Greg is calling out the newer Civic's struts as very advanced and they are categorized with some really crappy stuff. What to do there? Line item exception on how good we think the suspension design is or go to a 'warts and all' philosophy? Tough to do that in the big-leagues of National racing in the SCCA where trying to balance everything on the head of a pin is the norm.
Maybe DW, Advanced non DW, and strut. Cars with complex multi-links may fit the middle category. Spitballin.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks